Re: Mines (small rant)

>> >> <rant>
>> >> I _hate_ mines as a space combat concept.
>> >> </rant>
>>
>> It kind of depends on where you're putting them.  You don't drop
mines at
>> random all over the ocean.  You drop them outside harbors, or in
straits
>> (around planets, or near jump points).
>
>It would be cheaper and more effective to build warships to defend the
>location.   consider the number of mines it will take to destroy a
>battleship squadron of two ships, lay them out in a straight line 6
>inches apart, this is the depth of the minefield.   Now calculate
>the surface area of each of the spheres, divide by the area covered
>by each mine, and you have the number of mines in each layer.
>Add all the layers together and you have the number of mines
>you must buy to build the minefield.

You are making the assumption we want 100% coverage.	Not necessarily
the
case.  Anything that complicates the enemy's mission is fine.  Also, I'm
not
holding out for destroying BB's--if mines can kill his frigates and
DD's,
that'll work for me.

   Say that 5% of the mines
>become inactive each year, plus the cost of the minelayers and
>minesweepers to maintain the field, we are now in the range of
>having a fleet of 20 or more superdreadnoughts parked at the planet
>full time for the same cost.

Mines don't have salaries.  Mines are incredibly cheap compared to
warships.
Mines don't need to be active (thus suffering maintenance attrition) all
the
time--deploy them only when you think you need them.  I'm not saying
mines
are king, I'm not saying that I want a mine warfare game, I'm not saying
I
don't understand the difference between trying to cover a surface and
trying
to cover a volume.  But they ought to be practical in at least some
circumstances.	Think of them as a short range SM.  Wouldn't you at
least
consider deploying some in the path of an oncoming battle fleet?